Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35601192›Full record

ArticleSN social sciences2022

On the digitalisation of higher education in times of the pandemic crisis: techno-philic and techno-sceptic attitudes of social science students in Crete (Greece).

Yiannis Zaimakis, Marina Papadaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SN social sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yiannis ZaimakisUniversity of Crete - Gallos Campus, Rethymnon, Crete Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-3145-4086
Marina PapadakiUniversity of Crete - Gallos Campus, Rethymnon, Crete Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drawing upon empirical evidence from a research carried out at the University of Crete, this paper investigates the social sciences students' perception towards their experiences regarding the emergency online learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals aspects of digital divides, as well as divergent perceptions of students, ranging from techno-philic attitudes that enthusiastically welcome the pivot to online learning, to ambivalent opinions expressing moderate satisfaction and techno-sceptic views, criticising pandemic pedagogies through digitalised forms of learning. The analysis sheds light on the contextual factors associated with the dystopic condition of the protracted economic crisis and the pandemic, that lie behind the claims of many students, revealing a main tension between contrasting perceptions of digital education. Students with positive attitudes towards online learning tend to highlight the advantages in regard to time and space flexible modalities of digital education, embracing it as an inclusive practice that responds to the social and educational needs of students, especially at times of crisis. Techno-sceptic attitudes criticise online learning models fοr lowering the academic standards, separating students from the real-life world on campus and repositioning them in digital settings where common physical experience, affective body language and classroom socialisation are missing. The article offers insight in the ongoing discussion of the emergency remote learning and underlines the political and pedagogical significance of the accelerating digitalisation of the universities in the post-COVID era.

Indexed as

DigitalisationEmergency online learningHigher educationSocial science studentsTechno-philic beliefsTechno-sceptic attitudes

Identifiers

PMID35601192
PMCPMC9109950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.